Michael Davidson’s “Universal Design: The Work of Disability in an Age of Globalization” is a particularly relevant piece regarding current events. Davidson examines the intersectionality between disability and globalization, and in doing so considers how disabled bodies become both part of public spaces, as well as being treated as public spaces. The idea of disability being spatial is fascinating, not least because it removes the, as Davidson points out, often moral associations of being disabled. Disability therefore becomes no longer a fault, but rather an inevitability based on social and geographical positioning.
Globalization is, at its essence, a game of wealth hoarding. The point of businesses developing international influence is effectively never for the sake of altruism, but rather to increase revenue. Davidson describes the “actuarial value” that is placed on disabled people—exemplified by the World Bank, but visible in daily life in a capitalist society—and establishes that in the free market “internationalization of healthcare creates—rather than eliminates—disability” (121-122). Regarding the pandemic-sized elephant in the metaphorical room, Davidson’s writing drives at the fundamental issue with both globalization and the treatment of the disabled community: those who are most at risk will, almost inescapably, will be left to fend for themselves. While a disease does not have to be disabling, people with no support network are the ones who will become disabled, whether that be physically or financially. To tie back in with the previous idea of disabled bodies being treated as public spaces available for use by society, the current pandemic panic reveals the lack of empathy for the disabled by treating the deaths of people with preexisting health conditions (such as respiratory issues, autoimmune disorders, and the simple decline of advanced age) as being inevitable and relatively unconcerning. That is to say that if only the sick and the old die, somehow, they are the sacrifice that society is willing to make. Obviously not everyone in the general public feels this way, but the general apathy that tends to be thrown about in regards to those most at risk is revealing, to say the least.
One criticism that can be made of Davidson’s text is that he lacks what I would consider to be first hand accounts of the issues he’s presenting. Most of the examples he provides are media examples, such as the films of Jibril Diop Membety, the film Kandahar, and the tape cassette “Yiriba”. He mentions the scandal with Bayer and tainted blood, as well as the traveling theaters in Africa that try to teach about the AIDS epidemic, but this lack of personal anecdotes leaves his writing to examine the performative views of disability, rather than the lived experiences of people with disabilities. The lack of first hand perspective, to me, removes some of Davidson’s credibility. Davidson’s view of disability is decidedly formed by the social model, which tends to view disability through a larger lens rather than focusing on the individual; disability is the fault of society, not any single person. While I do not believe that any of the points Davidson was making in terms of how disability relates to globalism, I do think the lack of individual experience outside of media is an oversight. While art often reflects reality, it is not the same thing. Describing the plot of Dirty Pretty Things (2003), while harrowing and pertinent to Davidson’s thesis, is not the personal account of someone who has been through the black-market organ trade. In some ways, Davidson’s lack of first-hand accounts is reminiscent of the removal of disabled voices from disability studies by focusing on stories about disabled people rather than stories told by disabled people.
One criticism that can be made of Davidson’s text is that he lacks what I would consider to be first hand accounts of the issues he’s presenting. Most of the examples he provides are media examples, such as the films of Jibril Diop Membety, the film Kandahar, and the tape cassette “Yiriba”. He mentions the scandal with Bayer and tainted blood, as well as the traveling theaters in Africa that try to teach about the AIDS epidemic, but this lack of personal anecdotes leaves his writing to examine the performative views of disability, rather than the lived experiences of people with disabilities. The lack of first hand perspective, to me, removes some of Davidson’s credibility. Davidson’s view of disability is decidedly formed by the social model, which tends to view disability through a larger lens rather than focusing on the individual; disability is the fault of society, not any single person. While I do not believe that any of the points Davidson was making in terms of how disability relates to globalism, I do think the lack of individual experience outside of media is an oversight. While art often reflects reality, it is not the same thing. Describing the plot of Dirty Pretty Things (2003), while harrowing and pertinent to Davidson’s thesis, is not the personal account of someone who has been through the black-market organ trade. In some ways, Davidson’s lack of first-hand accounts is reminiscent of the removal of disabled voices from disability studies by focusing on stories about disabled people rather than stories told by disabled people.
I Pledge.
Word count: 610
